Call for Sites Form

Form ID: 1326

Interest in land

Other (please specify)

Specify 'other' land interest

Please contact the agent: Amanda Sutton, Neame Sutton Ltd

If you are not the landowner of the site you are submitting, do you have permission to submit?

Yes

Address of site

Land East of Clapham Road, Clapham, Bedford 43 ha

Location plan

Show full map

Current use of land

Agricultural

Adjoining use to the north

Residential

Adjoining use to the south

Leisure / gymnasium / Residential

Adjoining use to the east

Employment / Education

Adjoining use to the west

B1/Residential /Hotel

Has the site been developed previously?

Proposed primary use

Housing

Other uses proposed

Housing , Employment

Number of dwellings proposed

The site is large enough for circa 1500 units

Type of housing proposed

Family houses

Other type of housing

No answer given

Density proposed

35 dph (gross)

Proposed tenures

Market housing - Owner occupied , Market housing - Private rented housing , Affordable Housing - Affordable rent , Affordable Housing - Shared ownership

Other tenures proposed

No answer given

Permanent or transit?

No answer given

Site privately owned?

Nothing chosen

Number of plots proposed

No answer given

Proposed type of employment

B8 Storage and Distribution

Gross floorspace proposed

TBC

Proposed type of retail

No answer given

Net floorspace proposed

No answer given

Gross floorspace proposed

No answer given

Number of hotel rooms proposed

No answer given

Amount of development proposed

No answer given

Description

No answer given

Can suitable access be achieved for the site?

The current access is unsuitable/requires improvement

Where will the site’s access point(s) be?

Access to the Highway network could be gained at a number of points where the site adjoins the Highway

Is the site available for development now?

Yes

Is the site currently subject to a planning application?

Is the site currently being marketed?

Are you aware of any issues that might affect the viability of developing the site?

1-5 years (2024/25-2028/29)

350

6-10 years (2029/30-2033/34)

500

11-15 years (2034/35-2039/40)

650

16+ years (2040 onwards)

No answer given

What year, post adoption of the plan, would you expect development to start on site?

2023. On grant of permission (Development could be phased) If the whole site was to be delivered then a phased approach would be agreed with the Council. The delivery timetable set out to the left provides a broad indication of the type of phasing based on a conservative delivery estimate and assuming two outlets with affordable housing delivery each achieving 50 dpa. In reality a higher level of delivery could be achieved particularly if a third outlet was to be included.

The council has declared a climate emergency. How the proposal will respond to climate change

De Merke is committed to achieving an environmentally sustainable form of development. The site offers the potential to achieve high quality sustainable design and construction minimising energy use and applying low carbon technologies to achieve a building design standard that exceeds current Building Regulation requirements and moves towards zero carbon. Opportunities also exist for the include of home working and other flexible space to respond to changes in work patterns that have been accelerated by the recent national lockdown following the COVID-19 pandemic. As a greenfield location the site also offers the potential for biodiversity net gain and other measures to improve the environment to the benefit of the wider community. The detail of any proposals will follow as part of any future planning application proposal.

Attachments

No uploaded files for public display

Site size (ha)

43.56

Site size threshold

Above

Overriding constraint?

Site not in accordance with the emerging development strategy

Stage1 conclusion

Exclude from further assessment

Stage 2 Assessment of suitability, availability & achievability

Nothing chosen

Stage 2 conclusion

Nothing chosen

1a. Within or adjoining UAB SPA or built form of a small settlement

? The site is within or adjoining a defined settlement policy area or within the built form of a small settlement.

1b. Accessible on foot to a food store?

+ A site accessibility score of 6 is recorded where 6 is 11 – 20 minutes’ walk.

1c. Accessible on foot to a primary school?

++ A site accessibility score of 8 is recorded where 8 is 0 – 10 minutes’ walk.

1d. Accessible on foot or by bus to a major employer?

+ The site is within 10 minutes’ walk of a bus stop with a regular bus service (at least hourly) which enables travel 8am-6pm Monday to Friday to a major employer or it is possible to walk to a major employer within 10 minutes.

1e. Outside, adjoining or within the air quality management area?

+ The site is not within or adjoining the air quality management area.

2a. Within or adjoining site of nature conservation importance

+ The site is not within or adjoining a site of nature conservation importance

2b. In an area where protected species are known or likely to exist?

xx Protected species recorded on the site

2c. Potentially able to achieve a net gain in biodiversity?

? Uncertain or insufficient information

2d. Able to link into the green infrastructure opportunity network?

+ The site is within or adjoining the green infrastructure opportunity network and able to enhance the network.

2e. Likely to impact on an area currently providing ecosystem services.

+ Opportunity area for 3 or more ecosystem services covers less than 25% of the site.

3a. Proposing a renewable energy scheme or extra energy efficiency standards?

0 No renewable energy generation scheme included and efficiency standards that meet normal standards.

3b. Within or adjoining the urban area, a defined settlement policy area or the built form of a small settlement?

? The site is within or adjoining a defined settlement policy area or within the built form of a small settlement.

3c. Accessible on foot to a food store?

+ A site accessibility score of 6 is recorded where 6 is 11 – 20 minutes’ walk.

3d. Accessible on foot to a primary school?

++ A site accessibility score of 8 is recorded where 8 is 0 – 10 minutes’ walk.

3e. Accessible on foot or by bus to a major employer?

4a. Likely to impact on designated or nondesignated heritage assets or their settings? For more detailed assessment see HELAA supporting document. www.bedford.gov.uk/LocalPlan2040

x The proposal has the potential to cause harm to heritage assets. This harm may range from low to high. There may be options to avoid, reduce or mitigate this harm and where sites have not been ruled out altogether for other reasons, further assessment will be undertaken to more fully explore impacts on significance and options for harm reduction and mitigation. This further assessment may ultimately lead to the conclusion that the site should not be allocated.

5a. Likely to increase future economic and employment opportunities?

+ Proposal includes permanent economic and employment opportunities.

6a. Proposing a main town centre use in, on the edge or outside of a town centre?

0 Proposal does not include a main town centre use.

7a. Within 400m of an existing open space or proposing open space within it?

x The proposal does not include and is not within 400m walking distance of a publicly accessible open space.

7b. Within 800m of a sports facility or proposing a sports facility within it?

+ The proposal includes or is within 800m of a publicly accessible sports facility.

8a. Likely to have a significant adverse impact on the surrounding landscape?

? It is uncertain what effect the proposal is likely to have on the landscape / more information is required.

8b. Within the existing settlement form?

+ The site adjoins a defined settlement policy area or the built form of a small settlement.

9a. On previously developed land?

x The site is not previously developed land as defined in the NPPF.

9b. On best and most versatile agricultural land ie grades, 1, 2 or 3a?

? The classification of the site is not known or it is not clear whether is classified as grade 3a or 3b.

10a. Within a groundwater source protection zone?

0 The site is located within a source protection zone but the proposed use is unlikely to be a risk to water supplies.

11a. At risk of flooding?

+ The site is within flood zone 1 (areas that have been shown to be at less than 0.1% chance of flooding in any year).

12a. Likely to provide a mix of housing, including affordable housing?

+ The site is likely to provide a mix of housing and include affordable housing.

12b. Able to address a particular housing need?

x The development will not meet identified needs eg elderly, care, travellers.

13a. Within 800m of a facility where cultural or social activities can be accessed?

+ The site is within 800m of a facility where cultural or social activities can be accessed.

14a. Likely to encourage social cohesion?

0 Neutral.

14b. Likely to help make the area safer? +

+ The development is likely to increase public surveillance or increase activity.

15a. Within or adjoining the urban area, a defined settlement policy area or the built form of a small settlement?

? The site is within or adjoining a defined settlement policy area or within the built form of a small settlement.

15b. Accessible on foot to a food store?

+ A site accessibility score of 6 is recorded where 6 is 11 – 20 minutes’ walk.

15c. Accessible on foot to a primary school?

++ A site accessibility score of 8 is recorded where 8 is 0 – 10 minutes’ walk

15d. Accessible on foot or by bus to a major employer?

15e. Connect highway without constraint?

? Potential access requiring mitigation

15f. Highway or junction capacity issues

? Potential capacity problem requiring mitigation

Highway comments. For more detailed assessment see HELAA supporting document. www.bedford.gov.uk/LocalPlan2040

The main access proposed off of Clapham Road would be suitable for the bulk of the traffic provided an adequate junction is built, most likely a roundabout to assist with traffic flow. The secondary access proposed off of Green Lane could be adequate for a small number of houses, but it should be restricted to a small section of the site and no more to prevent congestion on Green Lane. With a site of this size it is likely that additional congestion will result, this could be partly mitigated by installling a roundabout at the main access point to manage traffic flows. There will also be cumulative impacts from the various other developments proposed in Clapham. There are bus stops available on High Street approx 500m away where the 51 bus provides a half hourly service to Bedford and the 50 provides an additional hourly service to Bedford. At both proposed access points there is an adequate pavement on the opposite side of the road only. The pavement on Clapham Road is a shared cycle/pedestrian path. A Transport Assessment should be produced to assess the significant impact this and nearby large developments will have on local networks. Significant works will be needed at the main access point, most likely the construction of a roundabout at the entrance on Clapham Road to manage traffic flow to/from the site. The Green Lane access should be restricted to a small number of homes in the development to prevent congestion there. Due to the large size of the site, it would be beneficial for one or both of the 50 or 51 buses that pass along Clapham Road to stop at the site. Include pedestrian crossings at both access points to access the existing pavements from the site. On Clapham Rd, the crossing would be best as a Toucan crossing which would allow safe crossing for both pedestrians and cycles to access the existing shared path. Reduce the speed limit on Clapham Road outside the side from 40 to 30mph.

Contaminated Land

Nothing chosen

Environmental Health note

no noise concerns for housing but if other uses were considered the may affect existing residential

Mineral Safeguarding Area

Site does not fall within the boundary of a MSA.

Site assessment conclusions

The site has been excluded from further assessment at Stage 1 because its location is not in accordance with the development strategy.

Supporting documents

File: Landscape sensitivity opportunity

File: Transport Strategy

File: Masterplan

File: Highway Access Plans

File: Location plan

File: EWR Core section alignment

File: EWR route through ownership

File: Vision Document

File: Landscape sensitivity condensed